Linneen v. Gila River Indian Community
| Decision Date | 07 January 2002 |
| Docket Number | No. 00-15120,DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES,PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS,00-15120 |
| Parties | (9th Cir. 2002) ROSS B. LINNEEN, HUSBAND; KIM ANN LINNEEN, WIFE,, v. GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY; MARY THOMAS, GOVERNOR OF THE GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY; RALPH ANDREWS, GILA RIVER TRIBAL RANGER, IN HIS OFFICIAL AND INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY; UNITED STATESOF AMERICA; INTERIOR, DEPARTMENTOF; BUDDY SHAPP, BIA OFFICER, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; INDIAN AFFAIRS, BUREAU OF, |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Counsel James P. Mueller, Douglas V. Drury, Mueller & Drury, Scottsdale, Arizona, Tom Rawles, Linda S. Rawles, Phoenix, Arizona, for the plaintiffs-appellants.
Scott H. Gan, Tom R. Clark, Mesch, Clark & Rothschild, Tucson, Arizona, Robert Alan Hershey, Tucson, Arizona, Arthur G. Garcia, Ausa, Phoenix, Arizona, for the defendants-appelles.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona Roger
Before: Henry A. Politz,* William A. Fletcher, and Raymond C. Fisher, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs Ross and Kim Linneen filed a complaint in district court seeking monetary damages under 42 U.S.C.§§ 1983, the United States Constitution, Arizona state law, and the bylaws of the Gila River Indian Community, based on allegations that a Gila ranger unlawfully detained and threatened them during an encounter on Gila land. The district court dismissed the complaint as to the Gila River Indian Community, and as to Mary Thomas, Governor of the Community, and Ralph Andrews, Gila River Tribal Ranger, in their official capacities, based on tribal sovereign immunity. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and affirm.
The Linneens drove into the desert south of Chandler, Arizona on January 1, 1996, to take their dogs for a walk. The location they chose was on property belonging to the Gila River Indian Community ("Community"). Buddy Shapp of the Bureau of Indian Affairs spotted them, and Ralph Andrews, a ranger for the Community, was dispatched to investigate.
The Linneens allege that the following events took place: When Andrews arrived, he jumped out of his truck, drew his gun, and crouched behind the truck door. He ordered Ross to turn around and put his arms on his head. He searched the Linneens and their car. He kept the Linneens in custody for three hours, during which time he told them that they were guilty of various offenses that would result in jail time; told them that their possessions would be impounded and their dogs destroyed; held a gun to their heads; complained about injustices suffered by Native Americans at the hands of Caucasians; and lectured them on religious doctrine. Andrews finally released the Linneens after citing them for criminal trespass. The charges against the Linneens were later dismissed.
The Linneens filed a complaint in federal district court, naming as defendants the Gila Community, Mary Thomas, Andrews, the United States, the Department of Interior, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, and Shapp. The complaint alleged six federal and state law causes of action, for which the Linneens sought compensatory damages of $8 million, in addition to costs and attorneys' fees.
The district court held that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction for the claims against the Community, and for the claims against Thomas and Andrews in their official capacities, because of tribal sovereign immunity. The court held further that it lacked jurisdiction over Andrews, to the extent he was sued in his individual capacity, because the Linneens had not exhausted their tribal remedies. The court dismissed the claims against the United States based on failure to comply with the Federal Tort Claims Act.
Attorneys for the tribe and the Linneens filed a joint motion and stipulation for entry of final judgment in district court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54. Pursuant to the stipulation, the district court entered a final judgment granting defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint as to the Community, and as to Thomas and Andrews in their official capacities. The Linneens timely appealed this judgment.
We review de novo the district court's conclusion that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Wilson v. A.H. Belo Corp., 87 F.3d 393, 396 (9th Cir. 1996). We also review de novo questions of tribal sovereign immunity. United States v. James, 980 F.2d 1314, 1319 (9th Cir. 1992).
The only issue raised in this appeal is whether the district court correctly held that tribal sovereign immunity bars the Linneens' claims against the Community, and against Thomas and Andrews in their official capacities. Because the Linneens' suit against the Community and against Thomas and Andrews in their official capacities is a suit against the tribe, it is barred by tribal sovereign immunity unless that immunity has been abrogated or waived.
"Indian tribes have long been recognized as possessing the common-law immunity from suit traditionally enjoyed by sovereign powers." Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 (1978). "This immunity extends to tribal officials when acting in their official capacity and within the scope of their authority." United States v. Oregon, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Marceau v. Blackfeet Housing Authority
...sovereign immunity are also reviewed de novo. See Orff v. United States, 358 F.3d 1137, 1142 (9th Cir.2004); Linneen v. Gila River Indian Cmty., 276 F.3d 489, 492 (9th Cir.2002). Dismissal for failure to state a claim is likewise reviewed de novo. See Decker v. Advantage Fund, Ltd., 362 F.3......
-
American Vantage v. Table Mountain Rancheria
...OF REVIEW We review de novo both the district court's conclusion that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, Linneen v. Gila River Indian Cmty., 276 F.3d 489, 492 (9th Cir.2002), and questions of statutory interpretation. Alexander v. Glickman, 139 F.3d 733, 735 (9th I. Diversity Jurisdicti......
-
Filer v. Tohono O'Odham Nation Gaming
...the doctrine of sovereign immunity applies to divest the Arizona courts of jurisdiction over Filer's claims. Linneen v. Gila River Indian Cmty., 276 F.3d 489, 492 (9th Cir.2002); see also Mitchell v. Gamble, 207 Ariz. 364, ¶ 6, 86 P.3d 944, 947 (App. 2004) (order dismissing case for lack of......
-
Big Sandy Rancheria Enters. v. Bonta
...immunity for its business operations without having to waive that immunity for nonbusiness liability. Cf. Linneen v. Gila River Indian Cmty. , 276 F.3d 489, 493 (2002) (explaining that a waiver of immunity from suit in a tribe's "corporate charter in no way affects the sovereign immunity of......
-
FUNDAMENTALS OF CONTRACTING BY AND WITH INDIAN TRIBES
...[61] Native American Distributing v. Seneca-Cayuga Tobacco Co., 546 F.3d 1288 (10th Cir. 2008); Lineen v. Gila River Indian Community, 276 F.3d 489, 492-493 (9th Cir. 2002). [62] 104 P.3d 548 (N.M. App. 2005), cert. denied, 106 P.3d 578 (N.M. 2005). [63] Colville Tribal Federal Corporation ......
-
WAIVING SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY GROWS TRICKIER
...federal law). [2] Kiowa Tribe v. Manufacturing Techs., 523 U.S. 751, 118 S. Ct. 1700 (1998). See also Linneen v. Gila River Indian Cmty., 276 F.3d 489 (9th Cir. 2002); Stock West Corp. v. Lujan, 982 F.2d 1389 (9th Cir. 1993); Dillon v. Yankton Sioux Tribe Hous. Auth., 144 F.3d 581 (8th Cir.......